When Self-Confidence Backfires: The Invisible Side of Self-Efficacy in Performance

Marcela Peterson

In many organizations, encouraging employees’ self-confidence is seen almost as a leadership obligation. The prevailing assumption is that individuals who “believe in themselves” are more motivated, learn faster, and deliver better results. However, research suggests that this relationship is far from straightforward. The study by Vancouver and Kendall (2006) reveals a counterintuitive phenomenon: in learning and preparation contexts, higher self-confidence may actually lead to lower effort—and, consequently, poorer performance.

When individuals believe they already master a task or body of knowledge, they naturally tend to reduce preparation time. This response reflects a self-regulation mechanism: the smaller the perceived gap between one’s current capability and the desired outcome, the weaker the motivation to invest additional resources. The problem lies in the fact that this perception does not always align with reality. Inflated self-confidence can generate a false sense of readiness, reducing study, planning, or practice—precisely the behaviors that are critical for strong performance outcomes.

For leaders and HR professionals, the temptation is to assume that boosting self-confidence will invariably produce positive effects. Yet when confidence is encouraged without corresponding skill development, a risky misalignment emerges between perception and actual preparedness. Employees may underestimate challenges, plan less thoroughly, and ultimately perform below expectations—not because of a lack of potential, but because of poorly calibrated confidence.

The core insight of this research is the importance of calibration. The goal is not to undermine confidence, but to help individuals develop a realistic understanding of what they know, what they still need to learn, and how much effort is required to progress. Rather than reinforcing positive beliefs alone, leaders can promote reflective practices that combine healthy self-confidence with critical awareness—an essential balance for sustaining genuine motivation and long-term performance.

Another important finding of the study is that individuals adjust not only their effort but also their goals as self-confidence fluctuates. When they believe success will come easily, they tend to raise their goals; when they perceive less mastery, they recalibrate expectations. This dynamic interplay among goals, perception, and effort is a natural part of self-regulation. Ignoring these internal processes may lead leaders to misinterpret drops in motivation or variations in performance, attributing them to personal shortcomings rather than to predictable cognitive mechanisms.

Understanding this dynamic reshapes how organizations evaluate performance, design training, and structure development processes. Instead of relying on the mantra “believe in yourself and everything will work out,” it is more effective to create environments that provide high-quality feedback, clear performance standards, and real opportunities to experiment, fail, adjust, and grow. The objective is not to diminish confidence, but to make it functional.

Leading with attention to this type of evidence enables more consistent, humane, and psychologically informed decision-making. When self-confidence is properly calibrated and aligned with real challenges, it becomes a powerful ally of performance. When it is artificially inflated, however, it can undermine preparation —the very foundation of learning.